tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3110873829655511995.post4773106714467346661..comments2023-06-10T00:01:59.851+02:00Comments on Thoughts from a Mountain: THE SHARD & TORRE PELLIHe Who Talks Bollockshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15279294907163329157noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3110873829655511995.post-71222481754678396552012-10-05T17:54:06.148+02:002012-10-05T17:54:06.148+02:00I tend to side with you, Silver Tiger... but I won...I tend to side with you, Silver Tiger... but I wonder if our position may be a little too conservative. First, think about what people back in the 13th century made of the Gothic cathedrals we admire so much today - I actually prefer Romanesque myself. Second, what about the symbolic purpose of a building? The idea of simply show that something can be accomplished. Third, and related, all the technological and human innovations that can result from a challenging architectural project (not all good of course). Ultimately, I think there has to be a bit of everything and experimentation is good. I do think harmony should be the organizing principle more often than not and not just in architecture. I am a big proponent of "simple, small, and harmonious." But if everybody (as a society) thought this way we would not be were we are - would we? Sort of thinking out loud here. Pink Pantherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14723371953969153563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3110873829655511995.post-71342822968857810862012-10-04T22:41:33.343+02:002012-10-04T22:41:33.343+02:00I remain implacably opposed to the Shard and to al...I remain implacably opposed to the Shard and to all the other oversized buildings in London. They block the view, steal the sky and turn the streets into dark, windy canyons. Compared with the best corporate buildings of the past they are inhuman both in design and scale. Already problems are emerging that the architects did not realize.<br /><br />I am not interested in being "visually challenged" by buildings. A building has a purpose to fulfill and should be designed with that in mind and also to harmonize with its surroundings. A collection of "challenging buildings" simply becomes and ugly array of disparate monstrosities.<br /><br />From what I see, many architects simply do not realize that what looks good to them on paper will not look half as good in reality. They are not used to building on the current scale and don't realize the problems they are creating. In trying to be clever and different they are using untried and untested designs and materials that don't stand up to the stresses placed on them. Norman Foster's designs would look good if he stuck the vases and jugs but when he makes them building-sized, that's when he degrades the environment.<br /><br />I agree that the 1960s were a period of vandalism when so many beautiful old buildings were destroyed and ugly brutalist designs supplanted them. There is now better protection for valuable historic buildings but this enlightenment has not yet penetrated building design which is still amateurish and ugly. As with art, there are some who are producing good work, but in both disciplines these artists are being marginalized in favour of top names who can do no wrong in the eyes of many and continue their depredations unchecked.<br /><br />I well remember La Giralda and the place it occupied in Seville. I find it hard to imagine that a gigantic tower can improve things but it's not up to me to sit in judgement. I have enough to put up with in my own city.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com